creativerealms posted...
What does that even mean? Why do things need to be "rooted in our nation's history?" That sounds like nonsense words.
The case is whether the ban violates substantive due process rights, which in this case is the claimed "fundamental right" for parents to direct healthcare decisions regarding their transgender child in the transitioning process.
The test for those claimed rights not expressly derived from those listed in the BoR is whether such rights are deeply rooted in American history/ideology (muh freebrams, basically). This test has been further divided down two pathways: there is the originalist/conservative approach, and the liberal approach.
The former takes the test to its absolute extreme: did the right actually exist or is it otherwise closely attached to a right that actually existed throughout the early days of the nation. This is, of course, moronic and easily twisted. There of course existed the right for parents to direct the healthcare of their children, but not specifically for transgender-oriented healthcare. Thus, this result.
The liberal approach looks to the spirit of closely related rights. It reaches the same point described above, but instead concludes that this is one other facet of healthcare a parent may direct for their child. Thus, the ban would violate the Due Process Clause.